https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73359 A statutory appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period could not be entertained where Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 conferred no power to condone delay, so the reasons for delay were irrelevant and the appeal had to fail on limitation. The authority was also under no duty to convert a consciously chosen appeal into a revision application under Section 81. A personal hearing was not mandatory because the provision left that question to the authority's discretion, and natural justice did not require a hearing in every case. Service on the firm through one partner was treated as sufficient, and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73359 A statutory appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period could not be entertained where Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 conferred no power to condone delay, so the reasons for delay were irrelevant and the appeal had to fail on limitation. The authority was also under no duty to convert a consciously chosen appeal into a revision application under Section 81. A personal hearing was not mandatory because the provision left that question to the authority's discretion, and natural justice did not require a hearing in every case. Service on the firm through one partner was treated as sufficient, and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73359